I would never give British media personality Charlene White a serious journalism assignment based on her unethical, unprofessional mangling of Cindy Crawford’s photo. Now that the facts — rather than White’s purported explanation of what she was doing with Crawford’s unretouched photo — have come to light, we are reminded of the incredibly low standards embraced by so many people who call themselves journalists.

Note: This photo is a fake!

A Tweet That Rocked Cindy’s World

For background, Charlene White came into possession of an unretouched photo of Cindy Crawford (above), one purported to be from an upcoming April 2015 spread in Marie Claire Magazine in which the supermodel purposefully had no Photoshop work done on her images.

White Tweeted the image with the message ‘Cindy Crawford’s April spread in Marie Claire features 100% non-retouched photos. Take a bow Ms. C.’

I’m not sure anyone working in the fashion world, or any follower of fashion, has ever called Cindy Crawford ‘Ms. C’. Ms. White is sounding very insider in her Tweet, but reality is that she isn’t at all ‘in the know’ in the world of fashion supermodels.

Naomi Campbell should read White the riot act, Brit girl style.

Marie Claire responded, clarifying that the photo’s origins are actually from a December 2013 cover story from Marie Claire Mexico and Latin America — and that the unretouched version is a leak.

Woops, Charlene!

The Published Photoshoot

Here are two images of Cindy from that photoshoot and a link to the entire editorial at AOC.

Marie Claire then wrote:

No matter where the photo came from, it’s an enlightenment—we’ve always known Crawford was beautiful, but seeing her like this only makes us love her more. And as she told us at the premiere of her new documentary last week: ‘I really think—at any age—it’s learning to be comfortable in your own skin. …If women would treat themselves with the same kind of love they give to their friends, that would be such a great gift we could give ourselves. …What makes you the most attractive is self-confidence. That’s what people see.’

(The documentary referenced is Crawford’s film ‘Hospital in the Sky’ dedicated to raising awareness of and helping to eliminate avoidable blindness in poor countries. Crawford was in Peru.)

Back to the business of women’s bodies. Agreed, Marie Claire. Cindy look fantastic, stretch marks and cellulite included.

Today’s High Definition World

In today’s world of high definition images, high-contrast lighting and a Twittersphere that feasts on eating people alive, I don’t know too many women who want to go totally unretouched in photos.

Cindy Crawford has not commented on the Charlene White leak through her representative. My understanding of the law is that photographer John Russo owns the image unless Crawford’s contract with him gives her control. Typically, very successful models co-own the rights to their images. Russo would never leak that photo, so it most likely came from an underling in someone’s organization — the model, the photographer, the retoucher, the magazine.

Charlene White’s Agenda

One must ask, then, about Charlene White’s agenda with Cindy Crawford.

One question no one seems to be asking is how did Charlene White get that photo and why didn’t she second source the facts around it? Was the purported story of Cindy going unretouched just too tantalizing to check out with people who would know the facts?

What I see here is a very aggressive young woman using Cindy Crawford to advance herself and her own agenda, without second-sourcing and, frankly, triple-sourcing from reputable people who would know the facts — like Marie Claire or John Russo or Cindy’s agency.

It’s clear that a plum photo of a very famous person dropped into White’s personal universe. It dealt with a timely and important topic for women — self image and how we compare ourselves in a Photoshop world — and White moved to make a name for herself.

White told CNN that she Tweeted the photo because:

“Women come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. I think it’s important to see all sorts of body shapes on our screens and in our magazines so that people have a true reflection of what people look like.”

Life In A High Definition World

I promise you that in the light of real life, the photo that White celebrates isn’t a true reflection of what Cindy Crawford looks like. This lighting is very harsh, much harsher than real light outside or at home. It’s dirty and gritty, and its effects are changed significantly in the images that were published. Sometimes photographers are shooting for multiple sources at the same time. The photo above is NOT Marie Claire material. Shot with an incredibly high-definition lens, every pore on Cindy’s body is magnified in this flat, two-dimensional view of the model.